MAXIMIZING PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES IN LEISURE RESEARCH: MOVING
THE SOCIAL AGENDA FORWARD
Alison Pedlar, University of Waterloo
Peggy Hutchison, Brock University
Introduction
This paper will examine participatory action research (PAR) and the critical theory school of thought in
which it finds its roots. It will consider leisure research that has employed participatory processes and
examine the likelihood that PAR can move the social agenda forward in leisure research.
The debate regarding the merits and demerits of positivist and interpretive research paradigms is not
unfamiliar to leisure researchers and has periodically been the focus of special issues of journals and
scholarly meetings (Special Issue of Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 22,1990; Special Issue of Journal
of Applied Recreation Research, Vol. 18, 1993; Special Issue of Loisir et Societe, Vol. 2, 1997). Less
apparent is any discussion of action research and participatory research in leisure. One could infer from
this absence of debate that participatory research is regarded as appropriate, relevant, and a regularly
adopted approach by leisure researchers. Instead, it seems, North American leisure researchers, including
those who would likely seek to influence the political agenda through their work, have consistently shied
away from action research and participatory action research. One reason for this may be that action and
participatory research are seen as "old hat", relevant in a bygone era directed at democratizing processes
(Beckers, 1995). As well, frequently noted is the perception of the paradox in conducting PAR, that it is
to have both scientific rigor and practical relevance (Elden & Levin, 1991).
The paradox arises from the requirement that social science research be "scientific", at the very least in
terms of its ability to demonstrate its validity, reliability, and generalizability. In attempting to satisfy that
requirement, researchers seeking to conduct PAR can quickly lose sight of what it is they are essentially
bound to in doing participatory research, namely focusing "upon the political empowerment of people
through group participation in the search for and acquisition of knowledge" (Merriam & Simpson, 1989,
p.125). The credibility of participatory research rests on whether or not the constructions are plausible to
those being researched (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1995). When ostensibly participatory research loses its
commitment or ability to remain genuinely participatory, it cannot begin to fulfil its potential to facilitate a
more enlightened praxis in recreation and leisure.
Critical Theory and Critical Research Frameworks
Conceptualization of knowledge in participatory research and other similar unconventional research
frameworks, including action research, applied policy research, community organizing, and feminist
critique, is based in critical theory. These approaches to conducting research seek to influence politics and
power relations. Accordingly, critical theorists and researchers are not satisfied with merely increasing
knowledge (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1994). Instead, guided by the continental social theorists including
Foucault, Habermas, and Derrida, their concern is for the social construction of experience and the
reconstruction of social sciences which may lead to a more democratic social order. Critical theory and
research, therefore, is aimed at enlightenment, reflective practice, and emancipation (Geuss, 1981).
Within leisure studies in North America, among the above approaches to critical research, it is the
feminist critique which has gained the firmest foothold in the field over the past decade (Bella, 1989;
Henderson, Bialeschki, Shaw, & Freysinger, 1996). Minimal application of the other critical frameworks
has occurred. It is our contention that these frameworks, and particularly participatory action research,
have much to teach us about processes of social change.
Indeed, PAR may be one approach that can move leisure studies toward citizen empowerment and
emancipation. But first such work will need to be genuinely participatory, and secondly, before
researchers will be prepared to engage in PAR, they need to overcome the challenge of having their
research seen as bone fide by the research community.
Characteristics of PAR
Part of this challenge rests in the employment in PAR of methodologies which are foreign to the training
and thinking of mainstream social scientists. Tied to this is the assumption that critical research
approaches such as PAR, feminist critique, and community organizing, are limited to or synonymous with
qualitative methods. This is a false assumption. As well, there are at least two different views of
participatory research. The first is that it is concerned with change in organizational or practitioner
practices (Schon, 1987; Whyte, 1991). The second view rests on the idea that "societal groups have
conflicting interests and that the plight of disadvantaged groups is a critical problem" (Brown & Tandon,
1983, p. 281). Hence, conflict is ubiquitous and a necessary precondition of fundamental change
(Danrandorf, 1959). We suggest that within leisure research in North America, neither of these views has
gained credence as producing rigorous and relevant research. The former, however, where the research
focus has been obviously concerned with managerial or organizational issues, has had wider application.
Other characteristics of PAR that add to the challenge of its application in leisure research are that it
incorporates "co-generative learning", wherein the "insiders" or local participants and the "outsider", the
professional researcher, co-create "local theory" (Elden & Levin, 1991). Accordingly, co-identification of
problems, approaches, and solutions, are central to PAR. At the same time, change and learning are
continuous throughout the research process, and transformation occurs as a part of this process, not
merely as a final outcome (Morse, 1997). As Nelson, Giffin, Ochoka, & Lord (in press) note, outcomes of
PAR which continue after the research process is over, include supportive relationships, learning-as-yougo, empowerment, and social change.
Implications for Canadian Leisure Research
The few examples of Canadian leisure research that have adopted genuinely participatory approaches to
conducting research have tended to reflect the organizational/practitioner approach to PAR (e.g., Arai,
1996; Haasen, Hornibrook, & Pedlar, 1998; Pedlar, Gilbert, & Gove, 1993); even fewer examples of the
consumer-driven conflict oriented PAR (e.g., Frisby, Crawford, & Dorer, 1997; van Dreunen, 1996) are
evident in the literature. Indications are that participatory action research is more commonly adopted in
those social science disciplines, other than leisure, whose concern is with structural change and
empowerment of more marginalized groups within society~for instance, community psychology (Nelson,
et al., in press), and allied disciplines such as mental health (Park, Brydon-Miller, Hall, & Jackson, 1993),
and health care (Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 1997).
If we are concerned about community change, we need to be able to address issues related to power and
politics. In exploring approaches to research in leisure, there are clear indications that PAR provides an
important mechanism to influence the social agenda. Certainly, leisure researchers cannot assume that
traditional data collection approaches (researcher controlled surveys, interviews, questionnaires) are
sufficient in terms of capturing the perspective of citizens and truly engaging them in the process of selfdetermined leisure and recreation as meaningful aspects of daily life. The nature of involvement needs to
be such that genuine participatory research processes allow for leaming-as-you-go, empowerment, and
supportive relationships which serve to diminish power imbalances between the leisure research
community and citizens who may thus play a more active part in shaping the social agenda.
References
Arai, S. (1996). Benefits of citizen participation in a healthy communities initiative: Linking
community development and empowerment. Journal of Applied Recreation Research,
27(1), 25-44.
Beckers, T. (1995). Back to basics: International communication in leisure research. Leisure
Sciences, 17 (4), 327-336. Bella, L. (1989). Women and leisure: Beyond
androcentrism. In E. Jackson & T. Burton
(Eds.).Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future (pp.
151 -180). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc. Brown, L.D., & Tandon,
R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action
research and participatory research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19
(3), 277-294. Dahrandorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society.
Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press. Elden, M., & Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning: Bringing
participation into action
research. In W.F. Whyte (Ed.). Participatory Action Research (pp. 127-142). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. Frisby, W., Crawford, S., & Dorer, T. (1997). Reflections on participation
action research: The
case of low income women accessing local physical activity services. Journal of Sport
Management, 11(1), 8-28. Geuss, R. (1981). The idea of a critical theory. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Haasen, B., Hornibrook, T., & Pedlar, A. (1998). Researcher and practitioner perspectives
on a research partnership. Journal of "Leisur-ability, 25(3), 25-32. Henderson, K. S.,
Bialeschki, M. D., Shaw, S. M., & Freysinger, V. J. (1996). Both gains and gaps:
Feminist perspectives on women's leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
InN. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp.138-157).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (1989). A guide to
research for educators and trainers of
adults.Malabar, FA: R.E. Kreiger. Morse, J. M. (Ed.). (1997). Completing a qualitative
project: Details and dialogue. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications. Nelson, G., Giffin, K., Ochoka, J., & Lord, J. (in press).
"Nothing about me, without me":
Participatory action research with self-help/mutual aid organizations for psychiatric
consumer/survivors. American Journal of Community Psychology. Park, P.,
Brydon-Miller, M., Hall, B., & Jackson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Voices of change:
Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Begen and
Garvey. Pedlar, A., Gilbert, A., & Gove, L. (1993). The role of action research in
facilitating participation
In integrated recreation for older adults. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 28(2), 99-106.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Van
Dreunen, E. (1996). Common houses ... A community strategy for accessing leisure and
Social support activities. Journal of Leisurability, 23(1), 22-42. Wuest, J., &
Merritt-Gray, M. (1997). Participatory action research: Practical dilemmas
And emancipatory possibilities. In J. M. Morse, (Ed.), Completing a qualitative
project: Details and dialogue (pp. 283-311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1991). Participatory Action Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Contact Information: Alison Pedlar, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1. E-mail: apedlar@healthy.uwaterloo.ca Phone: (519) 885-1211,
Ext.3758 Fax: (519) 746-6776
Back to the table of contents
ABSTRACTS
of Papers Presented at the
Ninth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research
May 12 - 15, 1999
Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia
Editor: Paul Heintzman
Assisted by: Karen Naugler and Sean Smith
Printed and bound by Acadia University Printing Services
Copyright © 1999 Canadian Association of Leisure Studies
Organizing Team for the Ninth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research:
Glyn Bissix
Tom Delamere
Paul Heintzman
Scott Hennigar
Susan Markham-Starr
Heidi McKinnon
Neil Munro
Karen Naugler
Brenda Robertson
Jerry Singleton
I
The Canadian Congress on Leisure Research Is
held under the auspices of the
Canadian Association for Leisure Studies
Le Congres canadien de la recherche en loisir
se tient sous les auspices de
L'Association canadienne d'etudes en loisir
BOARD OF DIRECTORS/CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION
1996-1999
President/Presidente
Past President/President-sortant
Dr. Edgar L. Jackson
University of Alberta
Dr. Susan M. Shaw
University of Waterloo
Vice-President & Treasurer
Vice-president et tresorier
Secretary/Secretaire
Robert Soubrier
Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres
Dr. Tom Hinch
University of Alberta
Directors/Directeurs
Dr. Linda Caldwell Pennsylvania State
University
Dr. Don Dawson Universite
d'Ottawa
Dr. Wendy Frisby University of
British Columbia
Dr. Colleen Hood Dalhousie
University
Dr. Susan Markham-Starr Acadia
University
Dr. Gaetan Ouellet
Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres
Dr. Lisa Ostiguy Concordia
University
Dr. Bryan Smale University of
Waterloo
Dr. Paul F. Wilkinson York
University
II